Small Countries Should Not Exist

> What I am getting at here is that the fact that a bunch of people feel strongly that they are a particular and distinct people is not particularly interesting or significant, because this sense of identity is extremely malleable.

Ah, the classic "you do not exist" argument. Your group identity and belonging, language and culture, are not eternal, immutable facts of nature, therefore you must not object to their destruction.

Yeah, let's take them over! Didn't read the whole article TBH.

As much as I want to disagree with the author, I’m not entirely sure I do (certainly in an ideal world I do) and given the possibility of an upcoming technofeudalist future, more people may tend to agree with the future when the nature of small countries changes from small culturally significant relatively poor and vulnerable states to small obnoxious billionaire playgrounds.

Time to fold Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, Rhode Island, DC, North Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Maine, and New Hampshire into one big state, based on the author's weird argument.

And with the exception of Alberta, BC, Quebec, and Ontario, Canada can collapse the rest into a single province/51st state. /s